The federal government has brought a lawsuit against the state of Arizona over S.B. 1070, which allows police in Arizona to look into the immigration status of people under suspicion of being illegal who have committed another violation or offense. Arizona, along with other states along the border, are very adversely affected by illegal immigration, even including kidnappings and murders because of human trafficking and drug gangs from Mexico.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government wants to permanently declare S.B. 1070 invalid, “because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.” Incidentally, United States Code Title 8, 1227, a law by the federal government, allows the deportation of immigrants through a criminal act (such as moral turpitude, murder, forgery, trafficking, falsely claiming citizenship, being an illegal immigrant, etc.) – so, technically, the Arizona law is actually in accordance with the federal government code on this matter.

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution is the main argument for the federal government’s case in the lawsuit. Here is was has been dubbed “The Supremacy Clause” in Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

For years, the government has interpreted this passage as meaning that anything that the government does comes first over the states and citizens. However, this is incorrect: this clause makes it so that any treaties or laws made in accordance with the Constitution by the federal government supersede laws and treaties made by the individual states. The meaning of this clause, and much of the Constitution, has been lost to the federal government.

The lawsuit claims that the United States government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters, and then goes on to make the (absurd) claim that this power derives from the United States Constitution. Ironically, the Constitution the government claims is on their side in this matter is actually very much the opposite.

As I have already shown, the Supremacy Clause can only apply if the laws made by the federal government are in accordance with the US Constitution. There is only one reference to immigration/migration in the entire Constitution, in Article I, Section 9:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

So, until the year 1888, the government could do nothing about immigration except put a tax or duty on the importation. Thus, now, they have the right to deny the immigration of peoples, but they can do nothing to force said immigration, or even to make laws about it at all – it isn’t up to the federal government. Thus, the “Supremacy Clause” cannot apply.

The lawsuit says that: “The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders.” Interestingly enough, nothing is really being done by the federal government to stop the illegal immigration into Arizona.

The federal government is, essentially, in a business contract with the states. The government keeps their end, the states/citizens keep theirs, the partnership continues. If, at any time, the government does not keep their side of the agreement, the states and the citizens have a right and duty “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” (Declaration of Independence). As Thomas Jefferson said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”

Here is part of the agreement:
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Shall protect each of them against Invasion? Does the illegal immigration over the Southern border, which is putting a burden on the economy, not to mention causing deaths and disappearances, not count as Invasion? How can it not be considered such? Yet the federal government, in one of the few things that they are supposed to do, is turning a blind eye, and even attempting to stop the states from protecting themselves.

This conduct alone, this extreme breach of contract, means that the bonds between the federal government and the States are legally dissolved. Legally, the federal government no longer has any power.

And, just to add to the reasons why the federal government has no right to be our federal government, I present, once again, the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Arizona lawsuit has no legal grounds whatsoever – in fact, this lawsuit exposes how illegal our own government is.

In an interview in Ecuador on June 8th, Hillary revealed that the Obama Administration is going to sue Arizona over their immigration law.

First off, more than half of America agrees with the Arizona immigration law, and many states wish to implement similar laws in the near future. With such support from citizens and states in the Union, one would think that Obama would never go so far as to challenge the Law in court…especially on the grounds that:

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” (Quote from Hillary in the interview)

Contrary to the federal government’s belief, determining immigration policy is not in their power. The only part of the Constitution giving them any power in immigration is as follows:

Excerpt of Article 1, Section 9
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

Essentially, until the year 1888, the federal government could not keep states from allowing the immigration of those they see fit. They could only place a minor tax on such importation.

Since it is clearly after 1888, the government now has the power to keep states from allowing some immigration.

The federal government does not have the power to force a state to allow for the immigration for certain people. That power lies within the separate states themselves, along with most power in the country.

If Obama sues Arizona over the law, Arizona must win. There is no choice – the federal government does not hold the Constitutional right to force immigration of peoples upon a state. Need I repeat the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to keep people out of the States is not delegated to the US federal government by the Constitution, and it is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution – thus, it is reserved to the States or to the people!

(Then, of course, there’s the fact that the law is dealing with illegal immigration – thus, Invasion, which the federal government is supposed to protect the States and the citizens from. More on this in previous blog entry)